tv Erin Burnett Out Front CNN January 15, 2013 8:00pm-9:00pm PST
>> the machine knows. >> stop yelling at me. >> it is not just on "the office" this sort of thing happens. in august a man followed his gps instructions in to a harbor in alaska. in march, three tourists drove a rented car in to the bay. why? because the gps told them to of course. the tide rose. they had to bail out of the car and get a tow truck driver to pick them up. technology is winning, people we rely on these devooiss but when they tell us to drive in to bodies of water or croatia i think we have to take a step back. i'd take a step back but i'm starting to sound like the drunk uncle from saturday night live. >> these days it is like could you e-mail me dinner, fax mae hug. text me, text mess, text mess. why don't you write a letter, dummy.
spotify me. barf. you know what i want a groupon for? a moment's peace. >> in conclusion it is always a good idea to trust your instincts more and gadgets less or else you might take a wrong turn on to the ridiculist. erin burnett "outfront" starts next. an "outfront" investigation in to a booming business birth tourism. four women giving birth in the united states so their kids will be citizens and it's not from where you would expect. let's go ""outfront."" good evening. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, the battle over super storm sandy. so the house of representatives
is going to vote tonight, really just imminently, on a 49 house republicans voted against the final bill and we will speak to one in a moment this may sound like an easy vote to you because disaster relief always gets approved but when it comes to spending this country's money every dollar counts. as we saw with the fiscal cliff battle not everyone in washington thinks this kind of money is worth it. >> $16 billion is to quintuple the size of the community of development grant block program the slush program that pays for projects such as doggy day care centers and doesn't have to be spent in the hurricane area. $2 billion is for highway repairs, anywhere in the country including up to $20 million each for guam, american is a mow ya and the mariana islands isn't in the same ocean as hurricane
sandy. >> $20 million is a lot on a little island. tom foreman is joining me now. obviously we are so used to pork being laidn in the bills and it makes us all angry. where's the pork in this bill? is that it that bad? >> if you listen to the republican critics, they say the pork is everywhere in this $34 billion amendment that the democrats tacked on to this emergency spending measure for superstorm sandy. take a look. it includes $194 million for the national oceanic atmospheric organization. it will give $2 billion for repairing roads virtually anywhere after a natural disaster including, yes, guam which is ,000 miles from where sandy struck, more than $100 million for amtrak to end to its trains and tracks in the northeast corridor even though it looks like less than a third would
involve repairs related to sandy and it's damage. and the amendment includes $16 billion for the department of housing and urban development to help with disaster relief, rebuilding an economic revitalization but not just in sandy's path, in any disaster zone anywhere in the country. that is what the critics have been pointing to all day and calling pork, erin. they say they do not belong in an emergency relief bill and it is about rebuilding programs instead of rebuilding from sandy. >> as we know you can put in the money and when there is a disaster they ask for more. that's the way it works. thin furuated some lawmakers republicans and democrats. when it is you, you want the money. it doesn't matter what your party is. there was some irony in that. how have they fought back against the accusations of fat
pork? >> vigorously would be the first word. time and again, they pointed out all of the items in this amendment which would help rebuild businesses and get people in their homes, repair infrastructure and they insist all of this money is vital for a long-term comprehensive recovery. a few time that's lit in to fellow lawmakers from other areas like the gulf coast saying we took care of your disasters and now you owe us. this got nasty as it often does when one side calls a funding bill important and the other calls it pork. i mentioned the money for noaa, there's money in there for things that probably anyone would say doesn't really directly relate to sandy. in the same section there are parts that do relate to sandy. so the problem is in any given section the democrats can point and say, see, this is about sandy and the republicans can
look at another part and say what about this 20 million here 30 million here and 75 million here? >> it's pretty disturbing, disgusting one might say. thank you very much to tom foreman. john, i want to ask you this question, pork disgusts me and every american. one person's pork is someone else's -- i don't know, best part of the animal. the part is why is it always in there? why can't they realize that americans want a clean, transparent bill and cut out the crap for lack of a better word. >> shouldn't be too much to ask but someone else's pork is another person's lifeline. this is disaster relief 11 weeks after sandy. lawmakers begged for assistance and got it quickly after disasters devastated their region and now all of a sudden they are calloused instead of doing the right thing.
>> why not then give the amtrak money you need. why two thirds going to nonsandy-related things. give them the amount they need. >> part of it is narrative. remember the first sandy bill that passed a week or so ago, 67 republicans voted against it. there was no pork. it is disgusting when democratic lawmakers lard up a bill with things unrelated people should be furious. can't we get it together to do the right thing for the folks suffering. should we derail the whole thing the and get nothing done. >> let's bring in congressman from kansas. start with the bill that john mentioned. you were one of the 67 members that voted against the sandy relief bill and voted against today, as well. let me play what your fellow congressman said about it. >> to my colleagues from states who have had disasters some rather recently who decided we need to change the rules of the
game, shame on you. florida good luck with no more hurricanes, california, congratulations, did you get rid of the andreas fault, mississippi you think you are not going to have a flood again? who do you come to when you have these things. >> he obviously feels differently than you do. how do you respond to his point. >> a couple of things is to make sure the money we spend gets to those who need it. the earlier vote about flood insurance, we have a program that is hemorrhaging and needs to be reformed. one thing to note. according to the congressional budget office, 80% of the funds won't spent for two years. we don't hav to authorize or spend those today. we want to be certain the money gets to those in need and make sure it goes through the course to get people to comment to see how the money will be spent. >> much of what you say makes a lot of sense. when there is disaster relief aid it comes quickly and this
frustrated your colleagues from new york, new jersey, new england. governor christie has been vocal about sandy aid. he called out john boehner directly. i want to ask you the question this way, especially since you are from kansas, in new york, new jersey and connecticut where they were hit by the storm they look at it this way, for every dollar they send to washington every year in taxes, here's what they get back, 61 cents, new jersey. new york 79 cents. in kansas mayim bialik say you are loading off of us every year. you get 1.12 for every dollar you send in. don't they deserve their money back. >> i don't know what those numbers are. we have an america that everyone is getting more than they send in. 40 cents of every dollar back in washington, d.c. for relief aid or any other purposes is borrowed. what we are trying to do if you are going to spend 50, 40 billion or $10 it should be done in a fiscally responsible
manner, especially if 80% of the aid is not going to be spent until 2015 why rush it through? there's going to be pork items, smithsonian and other places have nothing to do with disaster relief and that what happens around here too often. when we borrow 40 cents out of every dollar make sure it gets to those who need it and there are millions of americans in need. >> the congressman when he mentioned the drought affects you in kansas. there's a drought according to the agriculture in 104 of the 105 kansas counties. you voted in favor to provide aid to kansas. $383 million. about that vote you said that money came from other programs, so that's why it was okay. you weren't getting new money. the scope of the disaster for sandy is much bigger than that in new york and new jersey. is it fair to dhamd money come
from other borders? >> 40 cents out of every dollar is borrowed. i voted for an amendment that says we can pay for it with cuts elsewhere. actually authorizing the money today when they are going to wait two years to spend most of the money. i voted for drought relief for kansas that has a tremendous impact but we did it by cutting other ag programs and i think it makes sense. time to stop borrowing money to spend money. there's no money. we are out of money and we want to make sure we do it in a fiscally responsible manner. >> you make fair points. back the point about the states and what they pay in, would you be willing that if kansas pays a dollar they get a dollar back. assume for this a moment that the number is right. this is a tax foundation number. that you would give that back. kansas would get less from the federal government right now. would you sign on to that? >> i don't agree with those numbers. we have a whole tax code that
helps states like new york that have higher taxes because they can take it off of their federal income taxes. that has to be part of that, as well. i think we need to help those in need is something we should be doing but if you are not going to spend 80% of the dollars for two years what's the rush? why hurry? get to the direct needs now and that's what i think is important and that's why i offered a transparency amendment that says let's see where the money is going. fema needs reform. we should be reformed it the last two years, a decade ago, after katrina problems and hopefully we can make progress when we do that. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your time. still to come, france has sent more troops in to mali to fight the war there and the united states promises to help. what is help going to mean for american troops? plus an "outfront" investigation, birth tourism. paying women big money to come to the united states and give birth to new american citizens.
and president obama goes it alone on gun control. one senator compares the president to a king. it's lots of things. all waking up. ♪ becoming part of the global phenomenon we call the internet of everything. ♪ trees will talk to networks will talk to scientists about climate change. cars will talk to road sensors will talk to stoplights about traffic efficiency. the ambulance will talk to patient records will talk to doctors about saving lives. it's going to be amazing. and exciting. and maybe, most remarkably, not that far away. the next big thing? we're going to wake the world up. ♪ and watch, with eyes wide, as it gets to work. ♪ cisco. tomorrow starts here.
cisco. we asked total strangers to watch it for us. thank you so much. i appreciate it. i'll be right back. they didn't take a dime. how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally. to help protect your eye health as you age... would you take it? well, there is. [ male announcer ] it's called ocuvite. a vitamin totally dedicated to your eyes, from the eye care experts at bausch + lomb. as you age, eyes can lose vital nutrients.
>> france has 8 hoo troops on the ground and getting support from 1700 soldiers in the region. the offensive against al qaeda linked militants trying to take mali over has gotten now full support from the white house. >> we share the french goal of denying terrorists a safe haven in the region, and we support the french operation. we are supporting the french by sharing information and we are considering a request for logistical support. >> but is the offensive working and will the united states have to get more involved? lindsey, thanks for taking the time. the basic question is when the world tries to determine can france handle this and resolve this, what progress are the french making in pushing the militants back? >> reporter: oh, i think the french are making huge progress at the moment. there have been bombing raids overnight and in the early morning for several days now. i have been speaking to people here who have relatives up in
the area where the fighting has been going on and they say it's in the main towns which the jihadists were controlling. they have just melted away now and said people up there are very happy because they hated those jihadists and the french, there's a lot of enthusiasm for the french. the question though is yes, they've managed to make them melt away into the desert now but will they come back. >> obviously a huge question. yesterday we spoke to the military leader of one of the al qaeda linked groups there, and he said we're continuing to make progress, obviously he wants to make that point, but he also said this was going to be a long war and as dangerous as the wars in iraq and afghanistan. do you think from what you're understanding that this is going to be a quick operation or is that something that could be incredibly drawn out? >> reporter: i think that the french can do an awful lot at the moment because the mistake
the jihadists made was whereas before they had been hiding in the towns, so it was impossible to get them by bombing because you would have killed so many people. they decided to come south to come towards the capital and that meant that they exposed themselves. that is why the french are doing this now. it's a window of opportunity. they're out in the desert, on the roads, and some of them are in their camps outside the towns. but also, what some of these jihadists are doing is that they will just lie low. they will lie low in the towns and then also, they do have people in other places so i think that there's a great danger of acts of terrorism here in mali and other places in mali, possibly elsewhere in west africa because west african troops are supporting and also, they have threatened in france as well. >> lindsey, the united states obviously has said or yesterday when i was speaking to the pentagon, they said for sure we are going to get involved in this conflict. the question was how. as you heard the white house saying maybe that will be logistical support, it could be transport.
is there a perception from what you're hearing on the ground that france will do this on its own or that the united states may have to get involved in a more significant way, not just logistics and things on the margin but a boots on the ground kind of way? >> reporter: no. i think that the french being the former colonial power here and the french having a very significant army, i think that when it comes to things like air raids and troops actually on the ground, the french will do it. but i think that where the africans will need the americans is in exactly those areas, logistics, transport, even things like food and equipment because the african armies, they just don't have those things. the most difficult thing for the african armies is to keep their soldiers fed and watered and to give them shelter so that is one area where the americans may come in. and the other area is drones. one of the reasons that the french are able to attack accurately some of the fixed positions of the jihadists is because drones, french, maybe american, have been flying over
that area for the last six months or year, and i think that that kind of assistance will be very welcome to the malian government and the french as well. >> thanks so much, lindsey. appreciate your taking the time tonight. >> reporter: you're welcome. nice to speak to you. now i want to bring in cnn's national security contributor, fran townsend. today, the president of france said something that just really stopped me in my tracks. he said france has no intention of staying in mali but we have an objective. that is, when we leave, there should be security in mali, a legitimate authority, electoral process and no more terrorists. if you substitute afghanistan for mali, it sounds a heck of a lot like the american objective in afghanistan which of course was not met and has been abandoned. can france get that job done? >> no. it's sort of one of these big audacious goals. you have to wonder what the president of france was thinking. it's one thing to have a limited objective to get your hostages out, to support the malian government and troops, to try
and provide security to the capital and to assist. those are achievable goals. but this is really quite stunning. >> stunning and something that could mean something much more significant or drawn out. the pentagon says look, we're definitely going to be involved in mali and they describe it that way to me, not troops on the ground, adamant that it won't take that form although of course, special operations are already there. what happens if france fails? mali after all is the number one haven for jihadists around the world. if france fails, what is the united states going to end up having to do? >> i don't think -- look, the way jay carney describes it from the podium, it sounds what i call the libyan model. we will provide intelligence, logistics support, maybe some air support, but we're not going to put troops on the ground. they have a big belief, the bigger threat and i think it's probably correct, direct threat to the united states is from yemen. we're not interested in getting involved in mali. look on the african continent. the one direct threat to the united states from the african continent really does come from somalia.
we can trace americans who have gone there to fight and we don't want the sort of really sad history of blackhawk down. we don't want to go back to somalia. we're not going to mali. the malinans know it. the french know it. we will not put boots on the ground there. "outfront" next, an investigation, chinese companies luring women to america to give birth and then demanding citizenship. and the history of the nra, what it was is so different than what it is right now. we'll tell you how it became what it is today. stubbed up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't unstuff your nose. what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus liquid gels speeds relief to your worst cold symptoms plus has a decongestant for your stuffy nose. thanks. that's the cold truth! thanks. officeyour business needs...k... at prices that keep you...out of the red. this week get a bonus $15 itunes gift card with any qualifying $75 ink purchase. find thousands of big deals now... at officemax.
♪ [ male announcer ] this is karen and jeremiah. they don't know it yet, but they're gonna fall in love, get married, have a couple of kids, [ children laughing ] move to the country, and live a long, happy life together where they almost never fight about money. [ dog barks ] because right after they get married, they'll find some retirement people who are paid on salary, not commission. they'll get straightforward guidance and be able to focus on other things, like each other, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. omnipotent of opportunity. you know how to mix business... with business. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle.
our third story "outfront," birth tourism. it's a booming business in the united states. chinese companies operating in the shadows are luring pregnant women to the united states to give birth. all in the hopes of getting u.s. citizenship for their newborns. >> hello. >> excuse me. >> reporter: they don't want to be seen. they won't stop to talk. you're going on a jog? i can jog. they came from this house. >> hi, there. >> reporter: quietly catering to pregnant chinese women like this one. we just wanted to chat with you a little about what brings you
here. >> reporter: who are they? they wouldn't respond to cnn's calls for comment, but they're just one of many businesses that publicly advertise to chinese mothers-to-be. it finds its roots in beijing. this storefront and this one offer package deals on chinese language websites, they advertise to parents, offer a step-by-step guide to obtain a u.s. visa, then arrange travel to inviting u.s. homes, where 24 hour nurses and doctors will care for the mother. it's called birth tourism. dozens of these houses are scattered across california, operating in the shadows within the suburbs of l.a. pay them thousands and according to their ads, they will help you obtain u.s. citizenship for your newborn. have you been inside? >> yes. >> reporter: arthur chen lives next door to what he calls a maternity hotel. on his street, he sees a lot of pregnant chinese women every day. why would a chinese mother come
all the way to america to give birth? >> citizenship. >> reporter: if people from mainland china get an american passport he says their life can be different. potential access to u.s. education and once the child turns 18, says chen, they can help others get green cards and become u.s. citizens. >> not here! >> reporter: neighborhood protests have sprung up around the state. >> go back to your country! >> reporter: local authorities have busted some of these houses for code violations but not for so-called birth tourism. that's because under current federal laws, it's not illegal. >> legally barred from denying a visa on the basis of someone being pregnant. >> reporter: that's the way it should be, say the parents of 3 month old francine. the family traveled to a u.s. maternity hotel so she could be born in america. dad is a naturalized u.s. citizen and says he understands why inese citizens come to the u.s. to give birth. >> they pay the fee, they got a visa, they do it legally so some
people are upset saying the chinese are taking advantage of the services. well, can say the same thing to americans, some of them, taking advantage of chinese services in china. >> reporter: back at this house, workers continue to move in baby items, prep for meals and the shadow industry continues to thrive right in the open. kyung lah. cnn, roland heights, california. our fourth story "outfront," executive order. president obama is making good on his promise to support new ways to curb gun violence. tomorrow he's expected to embrace 19 steps, 19. they like having lots of things on their list of things to do. he says he's got 19 things he can do through executive order that will bypass congress and the powerful opposition that he faces there. among the 19 items, he would improve the way the government enforces current gun laws, obviously that's a big problem because you know, you can enforce the laws we have and have a whole lot of change in this country before you even did new laws.
but in terms of new laws, he wants to keep better data on where the guns actually are and expand mental health reporting. he also wants to direct government agencies to conduct research on gun violence. now, these proposals don't significantly alter our nation's gun laws. that's important to point out. but already, republicans are mad and challenging the president. kentucky senator rand paul compared the president to a king, telling the christian broadcasting network, i think having a monarch is what we fought the american revolution over and someone that wants to bypass the institution, bypass congress, that's someone who wants to act like a king or monarch. "outfront" tonight, reihan salam and michael waldman, former speech writer for president clinton. good to see both of you. kings, monarchs, all in the eye of the beholder. republicans are angry because this is executive action and some might say look, if you can do a lot of these things through enforcement, why wouldn't you do that first. indeed, that is a part of what he's going to do but there is a point here that some say there's between 300 and 20,000.
i don't know why the range is so broad. anyway, of gun laws in this country. isn't this outrage just political? >> part of the issue is that whenever you have a party that's out of power, they are concerned about the abuse of executive power. when you have a democratic president, republicans are upset about it. when you have a republican president, that republican president will tend to use executive action as well to get around congress. so i think that that's natural to some extent that there's going to be that outrage and that it's selective outrage. i will also say, however, that there are few things the president has the discretion to do. for example, look into gun research and promote research into handgun violence. it's very hard -- that actually is counteracting some of the very powerful lobbies that are pushing against that kind of research so i think that -- >> research is a serious, smart thing. interesting point. >> that's the one piece of this that is a good thing. >> you're saying this coming from the right side of the spectrum. important point. a lot of people might say research and they would be more likely to scoff at it. >> it sounds noncontroversial
but actually, this is something that the national rifle association and its allies in congress have blocked in recent years. there is actually a provision in the spending laws that said that the centers for disease control can't do research if it might help quote, promote gun control. so there's actually some political heft to this and look, we want these policies in the heat of this moment, we should do everything we can to do more to prevent gun violence. but we want to make sure we're using the facts. we want to make sure we're not just ruled by emotion. we can't do it if we don't have the research. if we don't want to make some of the mistakes we made in the war on drugs, we need to have this research among many other things. these executive actions are, from what i can tell, well within the power that any president has to enforce the law and make policy. there are other big things like an assault weapons ban that congress has to be part of. >> i want to ask about the assault weapons ban. by going with 19 executive orders, that's a whole lot of things, a lot for people to digest. 19 sounds like you're doing
something. three is wishy-washy, five, whatever. you get double digits, you're doing something psychologically, right? is he shying away from an assault weapons ban? harry reid has said they can pass this in the senate but doesn't think it could pass the house. is the president basically saying look, forget assault weapons ban, i'm not going to get it so i'm going to go for these 19 things? >> you know, i worked as you know for president clinton and democrats have a kind of ancestral memory of when they passed the assault weapons ban and the brady bill and the tremendous political price that democrats in congress paid. i think probably in addition to the substance of it, one of the things the white house wants to do is to begin to break the idea that the nra has such omniscient complete power over government, make the progress he can make and that will actually help in the legislative fights, not drain away the energy. >> the nra is seen as all powerful in so many ways. we have a really great report on that in just a moment. let me just ask one more question. it still seems to me aside from all the new things you can do,
we can discuss what those are, and the nuances of it, there is this issue with the fact there are a lot of laws on the book which are not enforced. so it obviously isn't that -- isn't as easy as the president says, enforce them, or is it? >> i think that's absolutely right. there are many gun laws on the books. the problem is that in general, you're looking at criminal prosecutions. we have a panoply of laws yet it's very difficult to actually apply the laws to the crimes we have. that's why prosecutors have so much discretion because frankly, in any particular criminal case, you know, it's kind of like they're selecting from a menu. i think this is actually a broader, chaotic problem with a mix between federal and state and local laws. so this is part of the reason why there is so much discretion for the executive. and frankly, this is not the right way to solve the problem, in my view, for the president to come and do this. we need to clean up the laws on the books we have right now to make them easier to follow, make them more coherent but that's something you need congress to do. >> the power player in this room obviously is the nra. as michael said.
this might amaze both of you an all of you watching. did you know the nra today has said that 250,000 people have signed up and joined the nra as members in just the past month. they say that is an unprecedented spike in new members. it is a pretty stunning statistic. it's the kind of support that has helped transform an organization that at one point everybody was focused on training soldiers into now one of the most powerful and feared lobbying groups in the united states of america. here's jim acosta with their rise to power. >> if you're ready to make a difference for freedom in this country. >> reporter: these days, the national rifle association is a washington power house. the group's tough-talking executives -- >> we face the most dangerous election of all of our lifetimes. >> reporter: to its legendary past president, the late charlton heston. >> from my cold dead hands! >> reporter: the nra's influence has few rivals. but it wasn't always that way. the group got its start after the civil war as a firearms training organization. >> the nra began with humble
origins, started by two former union soldiers after the civil war. they wanted an organization to help american soldiers learn how to shoot and american civilians who would be the next round of soldiers to learn how to shoot accurately. >> reporter: ucla law professor adam winkler says flash forward to the 1930s. voters cried out for new gun control laws in response to the bloody bank robberies of the great depression like those depicted in the film "public enemies." when fdr signed the national firearms act into law in 1934, one of the legislation's top backers, winkler says, was the nra. >> the nra was a strong supporter of gun control laws. >> reporter: in the 1970s, the group began lobbying in washington and its more conservative members seized power. >> this group of hardliners staged a coup at the annual meeting of the membership in 1977, where they manipulated the
rules of order and literally overnight, ousted the entire leadership of the nra and replaced them with hardliners. >> reporter: the '80s brought the attempted assassination of president reagan and the '90s witnessed violent street crime in the inner cities, gun control efforts rose and so did the nra. >> the nra is very good at letting the folks back home in the districts know how their elected officials voted. >> we are millions of people just like you. >> reporter: the nra now boasts approximately four and a quarter million members. last month, as new gun control efforts picked up in the wake of the school shooting in newtown, connecticut, the nra says it recruited 250,000 new members, that's coming off an election year when it spent $19 million on campaign ads. >> much of that was against president obama. a lot of it was against democrats running for congress. >> had they spent that much money prior to that? >> no. no. this was a new development. >> reporter: the question now is
whether the nra's history will take a new direction after newtown. >> if republicans refuse to bring anything to the floor even for a vote, we'll see that the nra really is still strong-arming elected officials. >> reporter: the nra would not talk to cnn on camera for this story, but a spokesman for the group points out the nra is not just picking up what it calls an unprecedented number of new members. the gun lobby is raising money as well for what it predicts will be an expensive and hard-fought battle on gun control. jim acosta, cnn, washington. i want to bring michael and reihan back. that is amazing that the nra at one point was fighting for gun control, they thought it was appropriate and it has since become a much more absolutist organization. i'm curious about this unprecedented spike in membership. i did the math quickly so if i'm wrong, i'm wrong. i think about a 6% increase in their membership in just one month. that's pretty incredible. this whole discussion, is this going to galvanize the people for guns more than those against guns? >> it's an amazing thing.
when you look at this past campaign and the few years before that, there was no real talk of gun control, of gun violence legislation. but the leadership of the nra told its members and people who they wanted to join, your second amendment rights are at risk, they are going to come, take away your guns. it is primed for polarization. while there's a broad kind of common sense middle, i think, on gun issues in the country, those groups are not yet, anyway, organized. they are not as intense and of course, people fear that someone's going to take their gun away, might be stronger than people's hope for more sane policies. >> fear is always stronger than hope. when you have a job loss, for example, people are angry and afraid who are losing their jobs. the majority of people who are benefiting in that particular case may not be -- >> i think that's right but michael is talking about the middle on gun regulation. the problem is that a lot of the folks who have been talking about gun control in the wake of the newtown shootings really
have sounded rather more aggressive. there hasn't been talk about the importance of defending an individual right to keep and bear arms. rather, they have been talking a very pointed way that feels to gun owners as though they are being criticized, legal gun owners are being criticized. again, these are the gun owners who are not responsible for a crime. i think that that's why i think the nra would be very wise to try to strike its own middle ground. the nra needs to say that look, for something like universal background checks, it's not going to solve the problem but that's something that might make a difference in terms of limiting things like straw purchases. on the other hand, an assault weapons ban in many of these other symbolic ideas are things that are not necessarily going to reduce gun violence. so in my view, the nra would actually be very wise to say that look, we're against gun trafficking and we want to see reform of the laws to be sure that gun trafficking decreases, but we are against symbolic moves that are actually making it seem as though legitimate gun owners are the problem, when in fact they're not. >> thanks very much to both of you.
>> the questions and suspicion continued. >> i've said it for seven years, i've said it longer than seven years. i've never doepd. >> i can't be any clearer i have taken drugs than dintss like that could have never happened. how clear is that? nothing to say, nothing hide. >> even after the u.s. anti-doping agency said that he used performance-enhancing drugs and the cycling union stripped him of his titles, armstrong denied the allegations. why now? why did he decide to admit the truth in an interview. oprah had this to say on cbs this morning. >> i think he was just ready. i think the velocity of everything that's come at him in the past several months, particularly in the past several weeks, he was just ready. >> winfrey said she was mesmerized by armstrong's answers. this is something we thought was important. she said she is leaving it up to
viewers to see if armstrong was contrite. he turned a sport with a small following in to a sensation and became a role model for adults and children alike and larger than life athlete and person. and to me seems similar to tiger woods. tiger's failing was personal but we all felt violated by it. >> i have made you question who i am and how i could have done the things i did. i'm embarrassed that i have put you in this position. for all that i have done i am so sorry. >> more than three years later, tiger hasn't fully come back. won't won a major since 2008. the disgust that a lot of people felt about him has subsided. he didn't have a choice to come clean and maybe neither at this point does lance.
can he be redeemed. mike, let me start with you. the public can now speak in a way they couldn't a few years ago when this happened to tiger woods. on facebook, here on cnn, a few people, this guy's a loser a enliar wrote one woman he's not sorry for what he did. he's sorry he got caught. they are filled with anger and disgust. he cheated, made mistakes. he didn't kill anyone, or is a bad guy. he has done a lot for people with cancer. some people are incredibly lang angry this went on so long. his denies so vehement. will this pr parade rehabilitate him? >> hopefully it is not a pr parade. hopefully it is heart felt. hopefully including a pe tent heart which is key to any true apology. he needs to look at it as noted and point but a beginning. that's something he has to talk about the rest of his life. if those things are in place it's a possibility. it will not be the talk but the
walk we will be looking for later. >> everyone knows he's only doing it because he lost his titles and the testimony of his other racing mates came out. i mean, he denied it in the face of accusations for a decade. does that change the fact -- does that -- he didn't do it because he felt all of a sudden bad about it. >> all the time that has passed is not helping his cause. >> right. >> one thing i would say if lance were my client. this is easy to do when you are in a tube by yourself thinking of your own accomplishments. when you think of your family and kids. your kids have to go to school, how do they defend you? what message do you want to have for them. the kids that you talk to in cancer hospitals what do you want them to think right now and their parents who believed you. >> for those people he has done a lot of good. paul, i want to ask you something but before i do i want to play an ad. one of his biggest sponsors was
nike. this was such a big part of who he was denying doping. this is part of a nike ad. i want to play it. >> everybody wants to know what i'm on. what am i on? i'm on my bike busting my ass six hours a day. what are you on? >> all right. will his admission to having lied open him up to losing his fortune? >> i think it will make a huge dent in his fortune. for him to get his public reputation back he will have to fight his way through numerous courtrooms. the u.s. postal service, $30 million was pumped in to that team. there maybe a suit against him about that. there's a whistle-blower suit. tens of millions of dollars of liability there. all of these sponsors like nike who trusted him and his character and now find out 245 he was using illegal drugs and doing blood doping. in the end his reputation has been damaged. he's going to lose those
lawsuits. >> lose those lawsuits and money. does he face jail time? that's an interesting question. there's a deposition that he testified in texas in 2005 under oath. he clearly said i never used drugs. it's as clear as day. it's perjury. one thing going for him. statute of limitations is gone. so he cannot be indicted for that. but the federal government can look in to charges. let us know what you think about lance armstrong and whether he can be redeemed. up next the governor of florida has been accused of using his dog to get reflected. are reporters too rough on him? but she's still going to give me a heart attack. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. i had[ designer ]eeling enough of just covering up
my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. i decided enough is enough. ♪ [ spa lady ] i started enbrel. it's clinically proven to provide clearer skin. [ rv guy ] enbrel may not work for everyone -- and may not clear you completely, but for many, it gets skin clearer fast, within 2 months, and keeps it clearer through 6 months. [ male announcer ] enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events, including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. you should not start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have symptoms such as persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. if you've had enough, ask your dermatologist about enbrel.
during his campaign for governor of florida rick scott announced his family had rescued a labrador retriever. he was very excited about it. he actually held a contest on facebook to name the retriever and the fans decided on the name reagan. but then when rick scott took office, something happened. reagan disappeared. last time he made a public appearance was the day before scott was sworn in. become in january 2011. kind of weird, right? aren't labs always in your business? the press decided to find reagan. after a very thorough investigation, the tampa bay times learned that rick scott had given up reagan because apparently the dog got too
nervous around the governor's mansion with all the hustle and bustle. to the governor's credit, he adopted another shelter dog. why did he get a dog in the first place? maybe because voters really like people who really like dogs. from george washington on, our elected officials have found creative ways to be seen with their dogs in supposedly candid moments. seriously? on the campaign trail, walking in the rose garden, lounging on the white house porch. now, we know that all of them really love their dogs, but it certainly didn't hurt that they also helped them project a certain aura of manliness while still appearing nurturing, the perfect combo. that might also be the reason one of the first things our current president president obama said when he was elected. >> sasha and malia, i love you both, more than you can imagine. and you have earned the new
puppy that's coming with us to the white house. >> the president, of course, finally settled on his dog bo, as in b-o. i don't know. what do you think of someone who names a dog after their own initials? whatever. we're saying it's great that our leaders like dogs. we love dogs, too. and cats. piers morgan tonight is next. g? nothing. are you stealing our daughter's school supplies and taking them to work? no, i was just looking for my stapler and my... this thing. i save money by using fedex ground and buy my own supplies. that's a great idea. i'm going to go... we got clients in today. [ male announcer ] save on ground shipping at fedex office. [ male announcer ] save on ground shipping excuse me, sir i'm gonna have to ask you to power down your little word game. i think your friends will understand. oh no, it's actually my geico app...see?
...i just uh paid my bill. did you really? from the plane? yeah, i can manage my policy, get roadside assistance, pretty much access geico 24/7. sounds a little too good to be true sir. i'll believe that when pigs fly. ok, did she seriously just say that? geico. just click away with our free mobile app. when the doctor told me that i could smoke for the first week... i'm like...yeah, ok... little did i know that one week later i wasn't smoking.
[ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. it helps to have people around you... they say, you're much bigger than this. and you are. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. and his new boss told him two things -- cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, but he'll work his way up